On Secularists

05/13/2008

I wrote this a few years ago in one of my former blogs (now existing in a kind of indefinite limbo), and am giving it here as a courtesy to Cheryl from Fredericksburg. It’s near to a topic she brought up at Alan Colmes’ Liberal Land: What our basis for morality would, or could, be without religion. As with most things I say, try not to hold the thoughts too strongly against me, as I could think differently now, even worse, if you don’t like what I’ve said. Also, my grammar, as usual, sucks raw eggs. So, Cheryl, this is for you.

5/05/2005On Secularists

Well, I am not going strongly into the religion and state separation debate, nor shall I at this time try to define what it is to establish, or respect an establishment, of religion by a state. I also will not go deeply into the similarities and differences between secularists, so far as it is a philosophy and ideology, and the opinions of conservatives, liberals, et al. But, on the subject of human reasoning, its value and why it is important that it supersede religious doctrine, at least in when creating legislation and enforcing law and order, I think, supposing the following is accurate (at least enough), there is a kind of irony.

Religions are often developed slowly, formed from the minds of several people, and from the indirect influence of even more of them. The mores of societies past, perhaps present, evolve and devolve the religious’ messages. Generally, religions are conservative in their progress, sometimes totally conservative, hence there is no progress in some, most, or all areas. But, while the development of a religion might not be democratic, and their creators, being men and not gods (presumably), might not always be the most brilliant and qualified of persons, religions are often accepted by the masses. That brings the question of whether or not those that follow religion are being unreasonable, thinking without enough of their rational left hemisphere. I cannot say. Others can debate what is rational, but what I can say is that there is an irony in the idea that human reasoning would be superior to the “archaic, draconian, flawed tenets, et cetera,” of religion, when so many humans (it is from our collective ideas that we form our societies of reason) accept religion. I am not sure how much difference in societies there would be. And that might be the agenda here, if I can be forgiven for sounding conspiratorial, that it is less about the reasoning of people than the goals of the philosophical secularists. If societies do not change significantly by the absence of religions in state matters and beyond (to wherever) the effort to limit its influence would have been a failure. It would then appear that people and many parts of religions were in agreement, and that human rational thought was never as miniscule in the religious as some might think.